United States District Court, E.D. California
GRANTING IN PART REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE (ECF NO. 28)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY DEFENDANTS' MOTION
TO DISMISS (ECF NO. 27) AND GRANT DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S SUR-REPLY (ECF NO. 37) FOURTEEN (14)
DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE
MICHAEL J. SENG UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dwayne Denegal, also known as Fatima Shabazz, is a state
prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. The action proceeds on Plaintiffs first amended
complaint (“FAC”) for Eighth Amendment medical
indifference and Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claims
against Defendants Coffin, Cryer, Lewis, and Sundaram, while
Defendant Farrell is sued for medical indifference under the
Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 12.) All Defendants are sued in
their individual and official capacities. (Id.)
the Court are Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 27)
and request for judicial notice (ECF No. 28). Plaintiff filed
an opposition (ECF No. 31), and Defendants replied (ECF No.
34). Plaintiff then filed an unauthorized sur-reply (ECF No.
36), in response to which Defendants filed a motion to strike
(ECF No. 37). Plaintiff objects to Defendants' motion to
strike. (ECF No. 38.)
matter is submitted. Local Rule 230(l).
Request for Judicial Notice
ask the Court to take judicial notice of portions of the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
(“CDCR”) Department Operations Manual
(“DOM”) and several California Correctional
Health Care Services (“CCHCS”) documents, all of
which are available on government websites. The Court may
take judicial notice of information on a government website
when neither party disputes either the website's
authenticity or the accuracy of the information displayed.
See Daniels-Hall v. Nat'l Educ. Ass'n, 629
F.3d 992, 999-00 (9th Cir. 2010) (taking judicial notice of
school district's approved vendors publicly displayed on
website); see also Paralyzed Veterans of Am. v.
McPherson, No. C 06-4760 SBA, 2008 WL 4183981, *5 (N.D.
Cal. Sept. 9, 2008) (collecting cases). Here, Plaintiff does
not contest the authenticity of the cited websites or the
accuracy of the information presented. (ECF No. 31.)
Accordingly, this request will be granted.
also ask the Court to take judicial notice of a sworn
declaration filed in a separate action, Young v.
Smith, No. 2:15-cv-00733-TLN-CMK (E.D. Cal., filed Apr.
2, 2015). The Court may take judicial notice of its own
records in other cases. Fed. R Evid. 201(b)(2); United
States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119-20 (9th Cir. 1980)
(citations omitted). However, a court may not take judicial
notice of the facts contained within documents of such court
records. “The concept of judicial notice requires that
the matter which is the proper subject of judicial notice be
a fact that is not reasonably subject to dispute. Facts in
the judicial record that are subject to dispute, such as
allegations in affidavits and declarations . . . are not the
proper subjects of judicial notice even though they are in a
court record.” Townes v. Paule, 407 F.Supp.2d
1210, 1217 n.5 (S.D. Cal. 2005) (citation omitted); see
also Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 690 (9th
Cir. 2001) (“[W]hen a court takes judicial notice of
another court's opinion, it may do so not for the truth
of the facts recited therein, but for the existence of the
opinion, which is not subject to reasonable dispute over its
authenticity.”) (internal quotations and citation
omitted). Thus, although a court may take judicial notice of
court records, it may not take judicial notice of the truth
of the contents of documents therein. See M/V American
Queen v. San Diego Marine Constr. Corp., 708 F.2d 1483,
1491 (9th Cir. 1983) (“As a general rule, a court may
not take judicial notice of proceedings or records in another
cause so as to supply, without formal introduction of
evidence, facts essential to support a contention in a cause
then before it.”)
Defendants seek judicial notice of a declaration filed in
support of the defendants' motion to dismiss in Young
v. Smith, a matter currently pending before this Court.
The Court, however, has not yet issued a ruling on that
motion to dismiss and, in any case, the facts alleged in the
declaration in question are reasonably subject to dispute.
They are thus not the proper subject of judicial notice.
Accordingly, Defendants' request with respect to the
sworn declaration in Young v. Smith will be granted
only to the extent the Court recognizes that the document was
filed in that matter. The Court declines to take judicial
notice of the facts alleged therein.
Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's
filed a sur-reply (ECF No. 36) in response to Defendants'
reply in support of their motion (ECF No. 34). Defendants
then filed a motion to strike the sur-reply (ECF No. 37), to
which Plaintiff objects (ECF No. 38).
sur-reply, Plaintiff responds to Defendants' contention
that she attempts to expand the scope of her claims with
respect to the types of surgical procedures she seeks. (ECF
No. 36 at 2.) In their motion to strike, Defendants argue
that Plaintiff's sur-reply is unauthorized and that
Plaintiff failed to seek leave of this Court to file one.
(ECF No. 37 at 3.)
are not typically permitted to file sur-replies, and
Plaintiff neither sought nor was granted leave of Court to
file one. She also has failed to give any specific reason why
she should be allowed to file a sur-reply here. Accordingly
the Court will recommend that Defendants' motion to
strike Plaintiffs sur-reply be granted. Since the Court will
not consider Plaintiffs sur-reply in makink its
recommendation here, Defendants' request to file a
response to it (ECF No. 37 at 3) is moot.
allegations are set forth in the Court's July 8, 2016
findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 16.) As stated, the
case proceeds against Defendants Farrell, Coffin, Cryer,
Lewis, and Sundaram, all in their individual and official
capacities, for violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution. The acts giving
rise to Plaintiff's complaint occurred at the California
Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (“CSATF”).
claims that she is a transgender woman who experiences
gender dysphoria and distress due to the incongruence between
her male anatomy and female gender identity. She brings
Eighth Amendment claims, alleging that prison officials
interfered with her treatment, delayed providing her
feminizing hormones, and denied her requests for sex
reassignment surgery (including, specifically, vaginoplasty),
which Plaintiff believes is medically necessary to treat her
gender dysphoria. She further alleges that since title 15,
section 3350.1 of the California Code of Regulations
(“CCR”) and CDCR's DOM § 91020.26 bar
sex reassignment surgery, they constitute unconstitutional
blanket bans. Plaintiff also brings claims for violation of
the Fourteenth Amendment, alleging that ...